Announcing Lock On: Flaming Cliffs 3

[Emmer]

Somebody has to rewrite Modman...............:D

[159th_Viper]

Somebody has to rewrite Modman...............:D

 

Ain't that the truth!

 

I would have thought that it would be easy enough to convert to World but it's obviously not.

[Frostie]

That's potentially a pretty big project, though.

 

F-15C could carry PAC-3's, just need a weapon system upgrade... :P

(Okey, not fair, since PAC-3 Eagles isn't operational _anywhere_ and never was, but you get my point.)

Mig's can carry photon torpedoes, they only need inventing first. :D

[Alfa]

Hmm, but the newer MiG-29 versions are carrying the AKUs there, as well..

 

But are they? - the only photos I have seen of MiG-29 versions with R-77/RVV-AE on the most outer pylons are ones where the aircraft clearly is on some test flight....i.e. carrying red test(dummy) missiles.

 

If you look at MIGs own information concerning loadout options for the MiG-29M & -K..

 

http://www.migavia.ru/eng/military_e/MiG_29_M_M2_e.htm

 

...you can see that they only list up to six RVV-AEs, but up to eight R-73s.

 

On the other hand, they do list up to six RVV-AEs for the MiG-29SE(with only six pylons), so I don't know... :)

 

 

..as there's no APUs for the R-77 (probably because of those tail surfaces) and they are even farther out from the center (larger wings, if I'm not mistaken)

 

It doesn't look that way to me ijozic ...if you look at photo of the MiG-35, you can see that despite the height of the APU-470+wing adapter, the (front)fins of the R-27 are barely clearing the wing, while the tail fins are smaller and looks about the same size as those of the RVV-AE.

 

Yeah, but since the R-77 has those large surfaces too, I think it's up to the attachment points - e.g. the innermost position attachment points are spread apart more than the outer ones - hence why the adapters for the AKU pylon for the outer two positions are different (single-part and less long) than if it was attached to the innermost position (two adapters as used for the APU-470).

 

I don't think so - if you look at the attached MiG-29K photo, it looks like the same standard adapter block is mounted on both of the inner wing stations, while the blocks on the outer stations, although looking different, don't appear to be any shorter.

[Dudikoff]

The R-77 and Su-27 are exported so the Su-27 has been upgraded to carry this missile, just that Russians never got to upgrade their fleet. That's what I meant by they COULD carry the R-77. It's the same airframe, just needs weapons systems upgrade.

 

That's a broad simplification. Yes, Su-27s were exported, but in different variants (e.g. Su-27S, Su-30MK, MKI, MKK, MKV, etc.) and the R-77 missile was exported to only some buyers because only specific variants were upgraded to support such missiles. The basic Su-27 variants of the RuAF (e.g. S and P) do not support such a missile. You could physically mount it, but without some updates (I guess new software for the weapons control system plus radard modifications to enable midcourse updates), you won't be able to launch it.

 

Hect the Russians even offered the old MIG-21 airframe to carry the R-77, so it's obvisouly no problems in can they do it (and would they do it if situations requires ie if war breaks out) it's just will they want to do it (I guess money wise) and so far they haven't done it.

 

That's not true. They offered a radical modernization of the MiG-21bis variants, with most of the systems updated and/or replaced, which included a brand new Kopyo radar among others. India updated some of its MiG-21bis fleet and they call it Bison (though, they chose a mixture of Russian and some other systems, maybe French and Israel, doesn't matter now).

[Alfa]

The R-77 and Su-27 are exported so the Su-27 has been upgraded to carry this missile, just that Russians never got to upgrade their fleet. That's what I meant by they COULD carry the R-77. It's the same airframe, just needs weapons systems upgrade.

 

The Russians did upgrade some of their Su-27s to carry the RVV-AE, but this upgrade involves a whole lot more than just internal software changes - such as a redesigned cockpit environment and other modifications. So the upgrade really constitutes a "new" variant and as such given a new designation("Su-27SM").

 

The MiG-29S is the only upgrade I can think of, where there is no visual difference(externally and in cockpit) between the base(9-13) and upgraded (9-13S) version.

[Exorcet]

That's potentially a pretty big project, though.

 

F-15C could carry PAC-3's, just need a weapon system upgrade... :P

(Okey, not fair, since PAC-3 Eagles isn't operational _anywhere_ and never was, but you get my point.)

We could do the AIM-54 instead

 

[Kuky]

Ok, but Su-27SM is still Su-27S base model with upgrades adding guided ground ordenance and R-77, and so they changed the cockpit also (it does look different), yes they gave it new designation but to me this is equivalent to say MiG-21MF and MiG-21Bis versions in that it's basically very much the same airframe.

 

Anyway, to think of it, Su-27SM in DCS would make most people happy, I don't know how ED didn't think this would be most popular choice (instead of F-15C)

Edited September 11, 2012 by Kuky

[Dudikoff]

But are they? - the only photos I have seen of MiG-29 versions with R-77/RVV-AE on the most outer pylons are ones where the aircraft clearly is on some test flight....i.e. carrying red test(dummy) missiles.

 

On the other hand, they do list up to six RVV-AEs for the MiG-29SE(with only six pylons), so I don't know... :)

 

OK, they don't carry the real missiles, but I guess they mount the dummies on the real AKUs. We'll have to wait till the MiG-29Ks are introduced into Indian and Russian navies operational service to get some photos with the actual missiles (maybe Indian because they are doing it already and they have the missiles for some time, unlike the Russians which seem to be waiting for the never variants, the RVV-SD).

 

BTW, do you know if the Russians have facilities for mass production of the missiles now? If I understood correctly, all the missiles designed by Russian Vympel bureau (and other bureaus) were actually made in Ukraine by Artem. The Russians have formed this TCM company now to design missiles (I guess they include the Vympel), but I've read they're trying to get a control share-hold of the Artem company which might suggest they haven't developed such a capability in the meantime?

 

 

It doesn't look that way to me ijozic ...if you look at photo of the MiG-35, you can see that despite the height of the APU-470+wing adapter, the (front)fins of the R-27 are barely clearing the wing, while the tail fins are smaller and looks about the same size as those of the RVV-AE.

 

Yeah, the R-27s frontal fins are bigger, but I was trying to guess why isn't the R-77 rail launched and those flimsy rear fins seemed like the first choice for the uninformed people (like me). Beating the same horse, the R-27s frontal fins are frontal positioned so they would clear the airframe faster than the rear fins of the R-77 ;)

 

Maybe it's connected with the engine clearance, e.g. future R-77 versions might have ramjet engines and other changes, so they had such upgrades in mind from the start.

 

I don't think so - if you look at the attached MiG-29K photo, it looks like the same standard adapter block is mounted on both of the inner wing stations, while the blocks on the outer stations, although looking different, don't appear to be any shorter.

 

I'm abroad for some time so don't have access to my MiG-29 books, but I don't see the inner two pylons on that photo, actually. What I do see is that the outer two pylons have somewhat different adapters so might be some weight restriction difference between the two points on the M/Ks then (which would explain why they only mention 6 RVV-AEs as the loadout).

 

I was basing my uneducated guess on some photos I saw of the R-77 AKU and adapters for mounting on the Su-27 and the adapters looked the same as the ones from the APU-470. I presume that the MiG-29M/K variants with 8 wing hardpoints can only mount 4 APU-470 sized pylons (or larger) and 4 smaller ones hence why it seems logical that there is a difference in the attachment points between the inner two pairs and outer two pairs (and thus differently spaced adapters needed).

Edited September 11, 2012 by Dudikoff

[Dudikoff]

Ok, but Su-27SM is still Su-27S base model with upgrades adding guided ground ordenance and R-77, and so they changed the cockpit also (it does look different), yes they gave it new designation but to me this is equivalent to say MiG-21MF and MiG-21Bis versions in that it's basically very much the same airframe.

 

With a completely different radar, WCS and cockpit (among other changes), I don't see how it can be considered the same Su-27S base model. It makes much more difference in capabilities than e.g. airframe changes between Su-27S and Su-33 which are somewhat different airframes, but basically have the same operational capabilities.

 

Anyway, to think of it, Su-27SM in DCS would make most people happy, I don't know how ED didn't think this would be most popular choice (instead of F-15C)

 

Can't argue with that, but it's a rather new modification and I don't know how it can be expected to get the detailed information for modelling those variants. An FC level aircraft might be approximated, but an additional problem is that the Su-27SM cockpit changes introduced MFDs which are not really supported in FC aircraft (no clickable cockpits). So, a new cockpit would be needed and a clickable one at that (or at least some method of switching the MFD data), not to mention a lot of semi-classified and/or classified information on what those MFDs actually represent and how those systems they represent actually function.

 

So, unless they're hired by RuAF to make them a desktop trainer AND let them use some of that data for a commercial sim, I wouldn't bet on seeing it near future ;)

Edited September 11, 2012 by Dudikoff

[Kuky]

Fair point(s) these upgrades did come in recent years so surely info is hard to come by. Reason I say SM is based on base S model is because the aircraft frame is not changed it's still the same base model, where Su-33 does look significantly different, I mean even designation SM is based on predecessor designation S ;)

 

So, unless they're hired by RuAF to make them a desktop trainer AND let them use some of that data for a commercial sim, I wouldn't bet on seeing it near future

There's a hint for ED :smilewink:

Edited September 11, 2012 by Kuky

[mwd2]

So any concrete release day for FC3 this September? or will we have a delay?

[Dudikoff]

So any concrete release day for FC3 this September? or will we have a delay?

 

I guess it would come as an official statement in the ED news and announcements forum, so before it happens, your guess is as good as anybody else's (those who might have some insight are not sharing it before it goes official, anyway).

 

But, they did announce it recently and stated September, so I expect it to be released rather soon enough without much fanfare before.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Dudikoff

[Pyroflash]

..MFDs which are not really supported in FC aircraft (no clickable cockpits). So, a new cockpit would be needed and a clickable one at that (or at least some method of switching the MFD data), not to mention a lot of semi-classified and/or classified information on what those MFDs actually represent and how those systems they represent actually function.

 

Actually, they seem quite content with limiting the F-15C's MFD to a single page that can't be tooled around with, so I see no reason why they would not be able to do the same for the Su-27. Though the point is kind of moot considering they won't develop another FC level aircraft for the forseeable future.

 

Flanker guys get a moving map in NAV mode, and the F-15C pilots don't get squat. Probably because the F-15C's map page has pretty colors. This has to be the reason.

 

P.S. I need to do my Climatology homework. Does anyone have any paper that I could borrow? ~Thanks in advance~

Edited September 11, 2012 by Pyroflash

[Dudikoff]

Actually, they seem quite content with limiting the F-15C's MFD to a single page that can't be tooled around with, so I see no reason why they would not be able to do the same for the Su-27. Though the point is kind of moot considering they won't develop another FC level aircraft for the forseeable future.

 

But, I think it's because the simulated F-15C variant (pre-MSIP upgrade) doesn't have an MFD, anyway ;)

 

Though, IIRC, it was stated that the FC F-15C is not representing some specific variant, but rather it is a mix of features from several ones (didn't really study the spcifics as I'm not that much of an F-15 fan).

Edited September 11, 2012 by Dudikoff

[Mirtma]

I guess it would come as an official statement in the ED news and announcements forum, so before it happens, your guess is as good as anybody else's (those who might have some insight are not sharing it before it goes official, anyway).

 

But, they did announce it recently and stated September, so I expect it to be released rather soon enough without much fanfare before.

 

My thoughts exactly. And It'll be on Wednesday. :music_whistling:

[Kenan]

^^No, it will be on Thursday. On Wednesday Glowing Amraam finally finds the promo video he lost and posts it on the forum.

[GGTharos]

Indeed it doesn't represent any variant. It's fairly low capability in-game compared to the real deal.

 

Though, IIRC, it was stated that the FC F-15C is not representing some specific variant, but rather it is a mix of features from several ones (didn't really study the spcifics as I'm not that of a fan of the F-15).

[Alfa]

OK, they don't carry the real missiles, but I guess they mount the dummies on the real AKUs.

 

Yup and AFAIK the red painted "dummies" are for actual testing - same weight as the live weapons(probably for testing aerodynamics and missile separation). But like I started by saying, there shouldn't be any technical hinderence for mounting the R-77s on the outer pylons - I am just speculating that it might not be a pratical operational config due to the ejector rack thing....or maybe simply because it is considered more useful to combine the medium range radar guided weapons with a pair of close combat IR ones :) .

 

BTW, do you know if the Russians have facilities for mass production of the missiles now? If I understood correctly, all the missiles designed by Russian Vympel bureau (and other bureaus) were actually made in Ukraine by Artem. The Russians have formed this TCM company now to design missiles (I guess they include the Vympel), but I've read they're trying to get a control share-hold of the Artem company which might suggest they haven't developed such a capability in the meantime?

 

I have no idea mate - all I know is that during Soviet times Vympel had(or used) a plant in Ukraine for missile production, but what exactly the relationship is/was I don't know. One thing I heard was that the "RVV-AE" name denotes a version of the missile design that is produced using "foreign" components and for this reason so far has been an export item only.

 

Yeah, the R-27s frontal fins are bigger, but I was trying to guess why isn't the R-77 rail launched and those flimsy rear fins seemed like the first choice for the uninformed people (like me). Beating the same horse, the R-27s frontal fins are frontal positioned so they would clear the airframe faster than the rear fins of the R-77 ;)

 

I don't know the reason either - I doubt it has anything to do with the fins though.

 

Maybe it's connected with the engine clearance, e.g. future R-77 versions might have ramjet engines and other changes, so they had such upgrades in mind from the start.

 

Or maybe its just my guess in reverse - i.e. that it was deemed more usefull to carry short range missiles on outer pylons, so no need to supply a rail launcher for the R-77 for this purpose.

 

At any rate - if the choice is between an ejector rack and rail launcher, the former would seem the more useful - e.g. on Su-27 class of aircraft at least half the weapon stations require ejector racks(due to proximity to engines/weapons mounting config) and for that reason cannot be used for IR weapons.

 

I'm abroad for some time so don't have access to my MiG-29 books, but I don't see the inner two pylons on that photo, actually.

 

You don't? :huh: - ok the angle is not the best for the purpose since the most inner is partly obscurred by the one beside it, but if you look closer(photo re-uploaded) you can clearly see the rear ends(and two sets of retainer rings) of two adapter blocks.

 

What I do see is that the outer two pylons have somewhat different adapters so might be some weight restriction difference between the two points on the M/Ks then (which would explain why they only mention 6 RVV-AEs as the loadout).

 

Possibly yes - or the curvature of the wing surface at those points necesitates a different adapter....or the ones they had laying around just happened to be different :D .

I have seen photos of the Su-33 using two different types of adapters(one two-piece one like the one used with the APU-470 and another single piece block) with the R-73 on the same wing position.

 

Edit: due to the sweep-back of the wing panel, the most outer wing station is closer to the aileron, so it looks like a higher adapter is needed in order to provide clearence to this.

 

I was basing my uneducated guess on some photos I saw of the R-77 AKU and adapters for mounting on the Su-27 and the adapters looked the same as the ones from the APU-470.

 

My guess is that they were - i.e. simply the adapters for the APU-470 left in place :) . My point being that while mounting the APU-470+R-27 would require adapters of a certain height in order for the R-27 fins to clear the wing surface, there should be no reason why you couldn't fit the AKU-170 on those adapters as well.

 

I presume that the MiG-29M/K variants with 8 wing hardpoints can only mount 4 APU-470 sized pylons (or larger) and 4 smaller ones hence why it seems logical that there is a difference in the attachment points between the inner two pairs and outer two pairs (and thus differently spaced adapters needed).

 

I still don't think thats the case ijozic. The two inner wing positions have a much higher weight capacity - IIRC can take up to a ton, which would be the reason why R-27 class of missiles(and heavy ASMs) can only be carried on those, but I don't think there is a difference in the spacing between the attachment holes in the wings.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Alfa

[Dudikoff]

I have no idea mate - all I know is that during Soviet times Vympel had(or used) a plant in Ukraine for missile production, but what exactly the relationship is/was I don't know. One thing I heard was that the "RVV-AE" name denotes a version of the missile design that is produced using "foreign" components and for this reason so far has been an export item only.

 

Maybe the RVV-AE designation is a result of some marketing dispute as the Artem (the company created from this Ukrainian plant) had the right to produce the R-77 so they needed a new name.

 

At any rate - if the choice is between an ejector rack and rail launcher, the former would seem the more useful - e.g. on Su-27 class of aircraft at least half the weapon stations require ejector racks(due to proximity to engines/weapons mounting config) and for that reason cannot be used for IR weapons.

 

That makes sense - half of the Su-27 heavy hardpoints are under the engine nacelles so ejector launchers had to be used not to stall the engine with the missile fumes, so the pylon was developed with the Su-27 in mind, although it was first used on the Mig-29. What was I thinking??

 

You don't? :huh: - ok the angle is not the best for the purpose since the most inner is partly obscurred by the one beside it, but if you look closer(photo re-uploaded) you can clearly see the rear ends(and two sets of retainer rings) of two adapter blocks.

 

Actually, when you're in the quote mode, you don't see the attached photo so I didn't have it in front of me, thanks. I see what you mean, those pylons (or pylon adapters?) are rather small. Would like a similarly angled photo of the APU-470 pylons to see how spaced those adapters are on the same plane.

 

I have seen photos of the Su-33 using two different types of adapters(one two-piece one like the one used with the APU-470 and another single piece block) with the R-73 on the same wing position.

 

Interesting info. I thought it was a more standardized thing, but from that it would seem you can actually fit the bigger adapters then (perhaps with a negligible drag penalty).

 

Thanks for clearing my misconception.

[Alfa]

Maybe the RVV-AE designation is a result of some marketing dispute as the Artem (the company created from this Ukrainian plant) had the right to produce the R-77 so they needed a new name.

 

Apparently the RVV-AE also has a different internal designation code, so it sounds like it is considered a different product although the overall design appears identical. Aside from the origin of components, its also quite concievable that e.g. electronics, processors etc are updated. But thats just guesswork on my part :) .

 

 

That makes sense - half of the Su-27 heavy hardpoints are under the engine nacelles so ejector launchers had to be used not to stall the engine with the missile fumes, so the pylon was developed with the Su-27 in mind, although it was first used on the Mig-29. What was I thinking??

 

Well it was developed with new multirole variants of both the MiG-29(M and K) and Su-27(M) in mind, so at least the weapon station config of the Flanker must have been considered too :) .

 

 

Actually, when you're in the quote mode, you don't see the attached photo so I didn't have it in front of me, thanks. I see what you mean, those pylons (or pylon adapters?) are rather small.

 

Yeah they are removable adapters. The adapters have a couple of pins on the upper side that fits into holes in the wing surface and small retaining rings front and aft on the under side that fit into grooves on the varies weapon specific launch racks.

 

Would like a similarly angled photo of the APU-470 pylons to see how spaced those adapters are on the same plane.

 

I will see what I can find :)

 

Interesting info. I thought it was a more standardized thing, but from that it would seem you can actually fit the bigger adapters then (perhaps with a negligible drag penalty).

 

Yeah I thought so too and was a little confused about seeing varies different adapter/rack configurations for the same weapon in the same position.

[Alfa]

Ok found some old airshow photos(from 1992) of MiG-29K, MiG-29M and Su-33.

 

The first one was the only one I could find of the MiG-29K with R-27R, the second and third shows it with X-31 missiles and the fourth the MiG-29M with X-29T - note(most visible on the MiG-29M photo) that even with the large AKU-58 rack and heavy weapons, the adapters are the same small ones as in the previous photo.

 

The last photo of the Su-33 is quite interesting as it shows that even the extra wing pylon of this variant apparently is so close to the engines that the AKU-470 ejector rack is used for the R-27R.

Edited September 11, 2012 by Alfa

[Flаnker]

BTW, do you know if the Russians have facilities for mass production of the missiles now? If I understood correctly, all the missiles designed by Russian Vympel bureau (and other bureaus) were actually made in Ukraine by Artem. The Russians have formed this TCM company now to design missiles (I guess they include the Vympel), but I've read they're trying to get a control share-hold of the Artem company which might suggest they haven't developed such a capability in the meantime?

.

Russia can produce any missiles.

http://eng.ktrv.ru/

[Flаnker]

The last photo of the Su-33 is quite interesting as it shows that even the extra wing pylon of this variant apparently is so close to the engines that the AKU-470 ejector rack is used for the R-27R.

In su33 on pylons about engines used AKU. On the other pylons mounted on the wing APU. On this SU33 can only use 2 missiles R27ET

[Flаnker]

off:)